If you want to prove the existence of the world from a scientific standpoint... show me how the Laws of Thermodynamics in regard to matter being unable to return to it's pre-transient state allow for matter to exist and conform as we have it today from nothing. To do so is to argue that matter is eternal, and we all know that just isn't so. There can only be one other reason, and that is a Designer.

Why a designer? Why not 50 of them? And if the laws apply to everything else, then the same argument says the designers must have had designers. And why would the designers still have to exist? Forget science ... the whole "cosmological argument" is useless theologically.

dude, it is only your kind that argues for nonexistence before big bang or whatever happened at the start of the universe.

Me? It is a cyclic universe for me. It expands, it collapses, expands again, collapses again. No one period can know anything about any previous or future periods due to the nature of singularity. But you do not need to violate ex-nihilo principles, and you have neat little working model, at least philosophically. One problem is the WHY it expands again, and a deist can put his god there. For me? It is just something I don't know yet, and god looks like a copout. I'll learn sometime, and if I don't humanity will, someday.

Why are you even tying to sound as if you are being scientific when all you need is faith? Leave the evidences to science and atheists. If you think you do have a valid point, then back it up with evidence and citations etc.

You believe in a sky-daddy without any evidence to support a supernatural being of any sort, so you need faith in your belief. No need at all for you to bugger about with sciency writing. Or is just to impress the gullible and to suit the fundamentalist political aspirations?

Anyway, there is no god and the bible contains errors and is inconsistent.

@ avatar: AIUI (which isn't saying much) the Big Crunch model isn't much favoured nowadays. Pity, because I quite like the idea myself, but apparently there isn't much evidence for the forces needed to recreate a universal singularity.

The law of conservation of mass/energy says matter can be neither created nor destroyed. If that doesn't make matter eternal it will do until something better comes along. And the laws of thermodynamics deal with ... well, uh ... thermodynamics. Know what I mean?

You can't prove god with science, so quit trying.
As to the rest of your post, before trying to disprove anything scientifically, you have to learn some science.
Come back when you have.
EDIT: I read the original piece that spawned the above piece of Creatard drek. Priceless. I highly recommend it.

If you want to prove the existence of the world from a scientific standpoint...

I look around and observe the evidence of it's existence.

show me how the Laws of Thermodynamics in regard to matter being unable to return to it's pre-transient state allow for matter to exist and conform as we have it today from nothing.

No one with any understanding of physics is claiming that matter or energy came from "nothing". The concept of "nothing" becoming "everything" is the province of creationist whackadoos who can't be bothered the learn the science that they are attempting to argue against.

You can't win an arguement against the facts so you have to make up a twisted and out of proportion strawman and attack that instead. Typical creationist tactics, the warfare of cowards.

To do so is to argue that matter is eternal, and we all know that just isn't so.

No we don't know that that isn't so, you claim it isn't but you provide nothing to back that up. The Big bang theory postulates that everything that comprises the universe was at one point collected into a superdense sigularity which then expanded, it makes no claim as to the nature of matter or energy at or before that moment, and it certainly doesn't state that it all came into existence ex nihilo, ideas such as that are the province of creationists.

There can only be one other reason, and that is a Designer.

There could be a near infinite number of other reasons, of which a designer is but one. You are narrowing down the field to a designer because that is the one that you want to be true, not because you have eliminated all other possibilities using the scientific method.

In summary all you have acomplished is to attack a grossly distorted and obviously false strawman of Big Bang theory, asserted that the only other option is your "god", and then declared yourself to be the winner. That's not how scientific discourse works.

The fact that I'm sitting in a chair in my room at my desk in a house that's built on the ground in a neighborhood, in a state, on a continent, on the world is not enough?

"Laws of Thermodynamics"

You guys really like to pull those out. What if there was a state of the universe at some point in which those laws did not apply? Also, exactly how do we all know that matter isn't eternal (I'm not a physicist, so I don't know if this is a common claim of physics/cosmology or how we would know it to be true or false)?

Actually, when I look at a building, i know there were MANY designers. Now I know there are a lot of TARDS out there who think that only ONE person made such huge structures, but I am intelligent enough to know better.

To be honest, I never liked Gib gnab, and believing in a continually expanding and collapsing universe voids the reason to ask Christians how god came about, because they could just say he was there, much like occam's does to the universe, it just existed.

Of course occam's says USUALLY simple is best, I remember one statement a while back that showed that, I can't remember it, but you all could probably find one.